Rice University's premier undergraduate journal of scholarship in domestic and international policy.
Search
Keep Federal Funding Cuts Away From Agriculture
Jenna Perrone
2 hours ago
6 min read
By: Jenna Perrone
Photo by Kaitlin Newman/The Baltimore Banner
Introduction
Across the country, millions of dollars in funding and hundreds of pounds of fresh food sit in limbo amidst the Trump administration’s funding cuts. One of the latest targets of these cuts has been the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program (LFPA) and Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement (LFS). Established during the COVID-19 pandemic, the LFPA and LFS provide crucial funding for food banks and schools while also boosting local economies through non-competitive cooperative agreements (Kuang 2025, “USDA Establishes”). In March 2025, the USDA announced it would freeze the millions of dollars in funding used to facilitate these programs as “part of the end of the pandemic era” (Salette Ontiveros 2025).
The effects of these cuts, which amount to over $1 billion, are likely to hit rural communities particularly hard (Salette Ontiveros 2025). In an interview with Reuters, Trey Yates, owner of a small dairy churning business in rural West Virginia, recounts calling his father after receiving word of the funding cuts to tell him, “they're trying to bankrupt me.” More broadly, Yates cites concerns for his community: “They are taking fresh, local foods out of our kids' mouths and those facing hunger” (Huffstutter 2025).
West Virginia is not the only state seeing immediate adverse effects from LFPA and LFS cuts. According to the Times of San Diego, 330 trucks full of food, which would have provided fresh and nutritious options to food bank recipients in cities across the state of California, have been suspended with no indication of what will happen to them (Kuang 2025). North Texas food banks are seeing a $9.2 million decrease in funding, cuts that food bank officials say will be felt most keenly by working-class families (Salette Ontiveros 2025).
With similar outcomes expected in cities and states across the country, it is evident that the country is not yet ready to leave behind these COVID-era food programs. American agriculture and food supply chains remain fragile sectors, so the need for federal assistance remains. Establishing permanent USDA programs modeled after the LFPA and LFS will prove to be a crucial step in ensuring America’s vulnerable populations are well-fed and its small farmers and producers can stay afloat.
Origins of the LFPA and LFS
The LFPA was first announced on December 6, 2021, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. This program provided millions of dollars in funding to state and tribal governments for purchasing fresh food from local producers as a“part of USDA’s robust and ongoing support for food banks and the broader emergency food system.” In particular, the LFPA was meant to “place an emphasis on purchasing from historically underserved farmers and ranchers,” providing a much-needed boost to these producers in the midst of a global pandemic (“USDA Establishes”).
Although it was created under the Biden administration to alleviate the immediate impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, the LFPA was always part of the USDA’s longer-term plan to increase the resilience of the American food system. In a press release announcing the establishment of the program, the USDA stated the LFPA would play a role in creating a food system that is “fair, competitive, distributed, and resilient because the purchases will expand local and regional markets” (“USDA Establishes”).
The LFS was established in March 2022, just a few months after the LFPA. Many of the goals of the LFS overlap with those of the LFPA, including boosting the American food system. In a press release announcing the creation of the LFS, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack explained the program would “provide an opportunity for states to strengthen local and regional food system by increasing links between local farmers, ranchers, and food businesses with schools” and “[give] students access to the local, nutritious foods unique to the area they live in” (“USDA Now Accepting”).
Policy Proposal
In the years since their creation, the LFPA and LFS have distributed millions of dollars in funding to dozens of state, tribal, and territorial governments to support food banks and schools (“Local Food Purchase”, “Local Food for Schools”). Although the programs were initially established with the COVID-19 pandemic in mind, their missions remain crucial as rising costs, and specifically rising grocery prices, plague the country (Kelly 2025). Food insecurity remains a serious issue in the United States, meaning the federal government should prioritize ensuring food banks and schools can provide nutritious, well-balanced meals. In fact, according to a 2023 USDA report, post-pandemic rates of food insecurity are higher than 2020 rates at 13.5 percent compared to 10.5 percent. Moreover, the percentage of households that have very low food security, meaning normal eating habits are affected, has increased from 3.9 percent in 2020 to 5.1 percent in 2023, an increase of more than 1.5 million households (Rabbitt et al. 2024).
With so many Americans struggling to feed themselves and their families, eliminating the LFPA and LFS is not feasible. Not only do many working-class families rely on these programs for food, but small farmers and producers also rely on them for contracts that make it possible to compete with big industry names (Huffstutter 2025). Trump has built a platform on claiming to support such farmers, receiving an average of over 75 percent of votes in the country’s most farming-dependent counties during the 2024 presidential election (Felder 2024). To shut down these programs would mean potentially sending some of his biggest supporters into financial ruin.
The LFPA and LFS were originally established through Biden’s executive authority, but it is now necessary to codify them as law (Brown 2025). Children and lower-income households need access to fresh food now more than ever, as both prices and food insecurity are on the rise and state budgets simply cannot accommodate the extra burden of taking over for the funds provided by the LFPA and LFS. Federal funding cuts targeting higher education, health programs, and a host of other areas have already stretched many state budgets further than they can bear (Kuang 2025). Making state politicians choose between feeding the poor and treating the sick is simply cruel, and thus the federal government should intervene and continue these programs that have already seen widespread success.
Conclusion
The Trump administration has made their intent to cut back on all federal funding explicit, but if any program can be salvaged, it should be the LFPA and LFS. The funds and food provided by these agreements have had a profound impact on communities across the country, so eliminating these programs will be detrimental to the wellbeing of America’s most vulnerable populations. Originally created to increase the resilience of the country’s food systems, the LFPA and LFS have had a demonstrable effect, but their work is not yet done. Establishing permanent programs modeled after the LFPA and LFS will ensure American farmers, school children, and working class families continue to see the benefits of programs that have helped them survive even during a global pandemic.
The views expressed in this publication are the authors' own and do not necessarily reflect the position of The Rice Journal of Public Policy, its staff, or its Editorial Board.
References
Brown, Marcia. “USDA Cancels $1B in Local Food Purchasing for Schools, Food Banks.”
Comments